This has nothing to do with tariffs and everything to do with us companies hsving an unfair advantage or justnot following EU regulations. Or musk trying to interfere in our politics and supporting extreme right wing parties. Also us government having access to our cloud data, etc.
All our advertising money goes to the US to google/fb, because everyone is using them, not because they are inherently better at anything, for example.
So many of you keep using the word “unfair.” What is so unfair? What can these countries do that we cannot?
Have you considered all the advantages the US has over some of these countries? Is that not “unfair”? I would say the US’s relationship with the Internet is certainly an advantage even if we call it “fair.”
I think what they mean is that post war US got a special treatment from their main allies in exchange for US globalism, diplomacy, security.
For example in EU with digital technology the US got:
- always open arms for adoption (all govs prefer to use US software, although there have always been local alternatives). EU govs never really pushed adoption of their local software companies, they usually push for adoption of US tech
- extremely lax tax rules and enforcement towards US
- no protection of sales of local companies and startups (every successful EU tech company becomes US owned)
- lax enforcement of local laws towards US companies compared to EU ones. So many US businesses would be illegal but the companies do it anyway while EU alternatives have hard time existing (for example all consumer data gathering and sales but also companies like uber and airbnb)
All that is ok in eyes of EU politicians since there is “the silent deal”. But what do you do once one party doesn't keep their side of the bargain?
I totally agree and rereading it I completely flipped it. I thought he was another person in this thread saying that other countries have an unfair advantage against the US. My mistake.
It is because your congress and political system don't need coalition governments orvaby kind of agreements, winner takes it all. A true multy party system wpuld be mote flexible and less prone to catering to extremes on the left or right
The UK Parliament was by all means a two-party system, with Labour in one side and the Tories in the other. If anything it has become more diverse post-Brexit. Compare that with the Bundestag, where no party has more than a quarter of the seats.
There were 7 major political parties in Germany in 1933, so I’m unsure that there is overwhelming evidence that more than 2 political parties is protective against extremism.
Germany is the best argument multiple people in this thread made for how a multiparty system prevents the move towards extremism, but we are within living memory of Germany collapsing into what was arguably the worst case of extremism in history.
Of course there were special circumstances at play. Democracies don’t tend to collapse into dictatorship when things are going great. But the multiparty system did nothing to prevent it.
If a charismatic demagogue gains enough popular support, no constitution, multi party system, or separation of powers etc can stop him.
You could maybe argue that a demagogue is less likely to rise in a multi party system, but I haven’t seen any empirical evidence to support that.
There wasn't 7 major parties. Five maximum, even two could be argued. But '33 Germany is a weak argument against multiparty systems. Interwar Germany was not a well functioning democracy at all. They had armed street fights and deep political chaos going on for over two decades at that point. Hitler didn't have the majority and formed a coalition government. Only because Hindenburg agreed to dissolve the Reichstag could the nazis take power fully.
So the number of parties did actually block Hitler, and Presidential powers to subvert democracy was the problem. In modern multi party democracies an inability to form a government will result in a new election, not installing a dictator.
The Communist Party, the Social Democratic Party, the German Democratic Party, the Center Party, the German People's Party, the German National People's Party, and the Nazi Party.
Germany is the best argument multiple people in this thread made for how a multiparty system prevents the move towards extremism, but we are within living memory of Germany collapsing into what was arguably the worst case of extremism in history.
Of course there were special circumstances at play. Democracies don’t tend to collapse into dictatorship when things are going great. But the multiparty system did nothing to prevent it.
By the time Hindenburg agreed to dissolve the Reichstag, the SA was powerful enough compared to the German Military and he had enough popular support that he could likely have taken power by force.
If a charismatic demagogue gains enough popular support, no constitution, multi party system, or separation of powers etc can stop him.
You could maybe argue that a demagogue is less likely to rise in a multi party system, but I haven’t seen any empirical evidence to support that.
The uk doesnt really count, because it also has a fttp election system for the parliament, there are always 2 big parties and then some minor ones.
Better example would be Germany.
There were 7 major political parties in Germany in 1933, so I’m unsure that there is overwhelming evidence that more than 2 political parties is protective against extremism.
But then the C# people make writing code in it.. a horrible experience. They really like to over engineer and architect.
Had to look at some c# backend code. To write any kind of endpoint that talked to a database they had to write at least... 7? different files, lots of empty interfaces that has to be created and implemented, command, mediator patterns everywhere, etc. Looked like insanity compared to Spring Boot
But if you want it to be mockable, concerns-separated and what have you, you’ll end up with at least 3-5 files. But it ain’t got nothing to do with either C# or .NET in general.
> Had to look at some c# backend code. To write any kind of endpoint that talked to a database they had to write at least... 7? different files, lots of empty interfaces that has to be created and implemented, command, mediator patterns everywhere, etc. Looked like insanity compared to Spring Boot
Programming against interfaces. That's what you are seeing. Makes unit testing easier.
I see Villu Tamme, mentioned here, of all places. His bansds concept album Külmale maale has its 40 year anniversary. It is about the atrocities of the soviet union, deportations, Beria, kgb, etc.
For electronic products, it should be enough to get the CE mark on your product, and it can be sold in any country. That is the point of the EU, that any company can sell it's products or services in the whole union, there are regulations, but they are union wide, not specific for each country.
Unless you were making something very special, that each country wants to and is allowed to regulate separately.
Taxes can be different, the VAT % is different in each country. But so is it also in each county or town in the US, and your people claim that this is the reason why you can't include taxes on prices in grocery shops, which is difficult to believe here for our people. So dealing with different tax rates shouldn't be big news for you? I mean... there are lots of online shops that know about different tax rates, it's not difficult. Or you could let someone else handle it for you.
If you sell products to all 27 EU members and sell above a certain threshold you will have to work with all 27 tax offices in regard to VAT. There is OSS for B2C but that comes with significant downsides.
No. The US does not want an independent EU.
It wants an EU that lets any US company do here whatever it wants.
It wants the EU to split up so it can force bad trade deals on our countries.
We don't want a trade deal that lets you sell chlorinated chicken or other stuff that is currently banned here.
The US wants us to spend more on military but not on our own weapons but to spend all our money buying US made stuff.
Now what the president of the US achieved is that we want to spend more to develop our own local alternatives and improve them, not buy more from the US. Why would we buy from you if your president threatens to invade Greenland?
Also - military spending was increased not because Trump bullied us into it doing it. It was seen as necessary because of russian attack on Ukraine. Trump was not some genius diplomacy mastermind. He is a man child that is pissed of for not getting the Nobel peace price. How childish is that? This is not some person who can be taken seriously in any way.
Regulation is good, Micro-USB and USB-C for phones and computer chargers is better than the dozens of different chargers that was before. Only Apple was unhappy and didn't want it.
We don't want big US tech companies to steal our personal data and do whatever they want wit it.
Also - now trump is pissed off at Canada for trying to get a trade deal with China, when it was he himself who first said Canada should become a part of the US, started with random bs tariffs on canadian goods, etc. What else can you expect from Canada, why should they not try to find a more reliable trade partner? How can it be rational, what Trump is doing?
Yes, but the difference is that Denmark has said it many, many times, that it Does Not want to sell Greenland. The discussion should have ended there. But Trump kept saying "We will get it one way or the other" and did not rule out the use of force, etc. This is just insane and will alienate any allies. The Greenlanders also have said that they do not want to be part of the US. Some americans have joked that you could pay 100k to every greenlander and they would accept you happily, which would be totally stupid.
They would lose the free education and free healthcare that Denmark provides currently. Having to pay for medical insurance or to send your children to university from Greenland would wipe out any of the money the US would pay to bribe the greenlanders. It would be an unbelievably bad deal for them.
You did not need any more strengthening of any military treaties with Denmark, the US could already open as any military bases on Greenland, there was nothing stopping you from doing that, sending more of your army there to deter China or Russia, or whatever else. Here, https://people.com/donald-trump-wants-ownership-greenland-ps... He is saying he needs to own it to personally feel good. How does this make sense diplomatically?
Any excuses you make will not make him look better or make him look like he can be trusted. If you want to achieve something in international politics have to be made carefully, not by threatening to annex Canada or parts of your allied countries.
Your president is just destroying the good image and goodwill towards the US with his 'negotiation style'. His style is childish bullying and temper tantrums, he can not be taken seriously as a reliable partner when he can say one thing today, and tomorrow say something totally different, even if you think you have reached an agreement with him on something.
The US is not trustworthy anymore. Your president is switching randomly from on insane idea to something equally insane. Canada doesnt want to the the 51st state. Greenland is part of Denmark, which is in the EU, which has been the biggest ally for the US and now your president was not ruling out using force to take over greenland.
Trump fans are saying "this is how he negotiates, don't mind", etc but anything coming from him os just random bullshit and nothing he says can be believed because the next day he can be 180* on the same topic.
There were no such issues between any of the US allies in the time I can remember.
We thought that whenwe help the US in Afganistan and Iraq then it will be remembered when we need help, but now Trump threw all that goodwill down the toilet when he said that the allies basically didnt do anything.
Yes, I agree, codenames are stupid, they are not funny or clever.
I want a version number that I can compare to other versions, to be able to easily see which one is newer or older, to know what I can or should install.
I don't want to figure out and remember your product's clever nicknames.
reply